3 ms·

"Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal." It is not "breaking precedent". G

"Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal." It is not "breaking precedent". George Washington kept his farm. It's entirely unreasonable to expect a regular citizen to give up his business simply because he's elected to public office. Trump has taken many steps to ensure there's no conflict of interest.

hiharryhere 10y ago
He's taken the appearance of many steps. Owning a farm is a little different to being involved in sprawling international ventures that leave you open to pressure from foreign powers.
- ElectronCharge 10y ago
  Since he's gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury, there is no "pressure".
  - pg314 10y ago
    When did he say he was gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury? Last I read about it, his pledge only related to profits from foreign governments for his hotels and similar businesses. The WaPo addressed the shortcomings of that pledge in [1]. Since it is a pledge, it also supposes that his word has any value. Anyone who looked at his business or charity dealings knows that his promises are worthless. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate-foreign-hotel-profits-cant-be-checked/2017/01/12/816fced4-d918-11e6-a0e6-d502d6751bc8_story.html?utm_term=.90856a341559 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate...
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Even if that was true, this would not solve the issue. Consider if any Trump company decides to pursue a big new project in, oh, say China. Consider that just the knowledge of that, which might not be more than he might read in the papers, could very well cause him to adjust his policies either in the hope of favours, or even just subconsciously to avoid causing trouble for them. Beyond that there is plenty of scope for outright blackmail. E.g. what if some Chinese representative whisper in the ear of some Trump employee that significant legal problems might appear as long as China's relationship with the US is still strained over Trumps apparent lack of support for the One China principle. They'd not even need to mention his company, for that matter, or contact him. A slightly pointed press release about how there will be a crackdown on companies believed to not represent interests that don't fully support the One China principle would work too. Chances are we'll never find out how Trumps policies are affected (or not) by foreign interference, but it'd be naive to think that there aren't multiple powers that have people considering how they can take advantage of Trumps business ventures presence or prospective interests in their country to curry favour with him or try to pressure him right now. I know if I was running a country, then at this point I'd have a whole team on looking into opportunities, because even though it'd be rather unethical I'd want something in my back pocket in case Trump were to do something unpredictable that'd harm our interests. I'm sure there are plenty of regimes with less scruples about unethical methods.
davexunit 10y ago
>Trump has taken many steps to ensure there's no conflict of interest. This an outright lie.

hiharryhere 10y ago

He's taken the appearance of many steps. Owning a farm is a little different to being involved in sprawling international ventures that leave you open to pressure from foreign powers.

ElectronCharge 10y ago
Since he's gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury, there is no "pressure".
- pg314 10y ago
  When did he say he was gifting all profits from foreign ventures to the US Treasury? Last I read about it, his pledge only related to profits from foreign governments for his hotels and similar businesses. The WaPo addressed the shortcomings of that pledge in [1]. Since it is a pledge, it also supposes that his word has any value. Anyone who looked at his business or charity dealings knows that his promises are worthless. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate-foreign-hotel-profits-cant-be-checked/2017/01/12/816fced4-d918-11e6-a0e6-d502d6751bc8_story.html?utm_term=.90856a341559 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plan-to-donate...
- vidarh 10y ago
  Even if that was true, this would not solve the issue. Consider if any Trump company decides to pursue a big new project in, oh, say China. Consider that just the knowledge of that, which might not be more than he might read in the papers, could very well cause him to adjust his policies either in the hope of favours, or even just subconsciously to avoid causing trouble for them. Beyond that there is plenty of scope for outright blackmail. E.g. what if some Chinese representative whisper in the ear of some Trump employee that significant legal problems might appear as long as China's relationship with the US is still strained over Trumps apparent lack of support for the One China principle. They'd not even need to mention his company, for that matter, or contact him. A slightly pointed press release about how there will be a crackdown on companies believed to not represent interests that don't fully support the One China principle would work too. Chances are we'll never find out how Trumps policies are affected (or not) by foreign interference, but it'd be naive to think that there aren't multiple powers that have people considering how they can take advantage of Trumps business ventures presence or prospective interests in their country to curry favour with him or try to pressure him right now. I know if I was running a country, then at this point I'd have a whole team on looking into opportunities, because even though it'd be rather unethical I'd want something in my back pocket in case Trump were to do something unpredictable that'd harm our interests. I'm sure there are plenty of regimes with less scruples about unethical methods.

davexunit 10y ago

>Trump has taken many steps to ensure there's no conflict of interest. This an outright lie.